You’ve likely seen anti-gun advocates crowing over the recent Georgia court decision where a judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Savannah’s ordinance imposing fines and potential jail time for citizens who leave firearms in unlocked cars.
In the action, gun owner Clarence Belt challenged the law because it violates the state’s firearms preemption law. And in fact, given the language of the state statute, it’s very likely that Belt’s assertion was accurate.
Georgia’s preemption law states: “No county or municipal corporation, by zoning, by ordinance or resolution, or by any other means, nor any agency, board, department, commission, political subdivision, school district, or authority of this state, other than the General Assembly, by rule or regulation or by any other means shall regulate in any manner: (A) Gun shows; (B) The possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or other weapons or components of firearms or other weapons; (C) Firearms dealers or dealers of other weapons; or (D) Dealers in components of firearms or other weapons.”
Ignoring the statute as many big city leaders tend to, Savannah’s mayor and city council unanimously passed an ordinance in April that outlawed keeping firearms in unlocked vehicles, and set a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine and 30 days in jail for each violation. City leaders hoped the ordinance would curtail the widespread theft of guns from vehicles—by punishing gun owners who were victims rather than the criminals stealing the firearms.
Just a cursory glance at the law reveals that the Savannah ordinance very likely violates preemption. Of course, city leaders cheered the recent decision, and some in the media proclaimed it a victory for “common-sense gun safety laws.”
What you’re less likely to hear from either city leaders or the so-called “mainstream” media is that Chatham County Superior Court Judge Benjamin Karpf tossed the lawsuit, not because he ruled the ordinance didn’t violate the state preemption law, but because he ruled that Belt didn’t have standing to sue the city over the law.
In the ruling, the judge found that gun owner Clarence Belt lacked legal standing to sue the city because he isn’t a Savannah resident and hadn’t been cited for violating the city’s gun ordinance. Following the ruling, Belt’s attorney, John R. Monroe, was direct and to the point.
“It’s just a matter of time that this ordinance is going to be struck down,” Monroe said. And he’s likely correct.
In a case last month backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the City of Savannah dropped charges against a man charged with violating the ordinance. That move showed that even city leaders have little confidence that the ordinance doesn’t violate the state’s preemption law.
In fact, in early May, Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr sent a letter to the city advising that the new rule was not valid because it was preempted by state law. However, city leaders chose to ignore that warning in the Belt case.
In the end, city attorneys continue to argue that the preemption law doesn’t specifically address the “storage” of firearms, so the ordinance is valid. It’s likely just a matter of time before someone with standing in the case sues the city and the law gets struck down once and for all.
